On pages 55-61 are a number of Questions and Answers by RGJ attempting to support his various errors, to which we now offer pertinent refutations.

No. 1 – He presents the Question: Was the message of Rev. 22:11 first due to be proclaimed in its entirety in the Fall of 1954, or must it wait until after the Time of Trouble is over, as some claim?

In his answer he states, “One of Satan’s devices.... to deceive the Epiphany-­enlightened brethren into believing that.... Rev. 22:11 does not fully apply until after the Time of Trouble is over.” If he is referring to us – and we assume he is, even though he never has the character manifested by the Parousia and Epiphany Messengers, who never juggled any of their refutations of the gainsayers – then his statement here is a deception. We have never made such a contention. He quotes from E-10:114 – “1954 is the date that the last member of the Great Company will get his first enlightenment that will bring him into the Truth by Passover 1956.” To evade our previous annihila­tive refutation of his use of Rev. 22:11 at the Fall of 1954, he now offers the sophis­tical twist: “not necessarily into the Parousia or Epiphany Truth.... but sufficient Truth to enable them to make sure their final standing in the Great Company.” Brother Johnson says they would get “sufficient” enlightenment to bring them into the Truth by Passover, 1956. Why doesn’t he tell us what that “sufficient truth” was? Can he give one infinitesimal item of Truth they received then? And did they all come “into the Truth by Passover, 1956,” as was true of the parallel in 1916?

Then, further: “Passover, 1956, parallels Passover, 1916.” By Passover 1916 the last member of the Little Flock had come into Parousia Truth – into Present Truth ­into THE Truth. Certainly, all even moderately acquainted with Present Truth know that when we speak of any coming into “the Truth,” we mean into the Parousia or Epi­phany Truth. We don’t speak of those who gain some knowledge of the Truth as having come into the Truth, if they remain in Babylon. And this same RGJ is the very same person who often accuses us of sophistry! If he wanted to offer a fair and unsophisti­cal teaching to his readers, why did he not also quote from E Vol. 10, p. 607, which we now do:

“The production of the Great Company as a class is an Epiphany work; for by the time the Epiphany ends in its lapping, 1956 (RGJ contends this “lapping” is still go­ing on—JJH), all Great Company members will have been brought into the Truth.... These promises and their appliers, beginning in their second phase, Oct. 1954, to come to an end, will cease entirely to operate some time after 1956.” Let RGJ explain to us how “all Great Company members” were brought into the Truth by 1956 – if he can.

Furthermore, why did he not start his explanation by using p. 113 of E-10, instead of starting with p. 114? Here’s what we have on p. 113: “The third shorter forecast in the form of a prophecy on the Epiphany Messenger is found in Rev. 22:10,11. Here he speaks again... That the Epiphany Messenger is represented by the ‘he’ of v. 10 is evi­dent from the nature of what he said. Only when he expounds connectedly the entire book of Revelation will it be due to say, ‘Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book’; for Bro. Russell refused to expound the book as a whole, and after the early eighties of the last century refused to answer almost all questions asked him thereon. J. has hitherto followed, and for some years yet will continue to follow, the same course, which he will change toward the end of the Epiphany, when he will begin to ex­pound the book in its entirety connectedly.”

Did Brother Johnson “expound connectedly the entire book of Revelation” by 1954? Was he here to declare the message of Rev. 22:10,11 then? As Brother Johnson has so well asked, Why is it that these Levites offer citations and Scriptures that directly contradict their position? Is it not because they are so befuddled by Azazel that they cannot think clearly on the subjects involved? And Brother Johnson tells us, too, that RGJ is especially skilled in Azazelian trickery. (See E-10:646)

Then he tells us that he is “building up the Epiphany Camp – after the Epiphany period begins to lap into the Basileia” – with his “Consecrated Epiphany Campers.” Why does he not also use in this connection what is found in E-10:209? “The Epiphany Camp in the finished picture is the condition of truly repentant and believing, but not consecrated Jews and Gentiles,”

No. 2 – In E Vol. 10, p. 672, Bro. Johnson states that “non-Truth Great Company and Youthful Worthy brethren, and new ones not yet consecrated, are to be won for the Truth, some of whom will be won before Babylon is destroyed and others of them afterward.” Does he in this statement militate against the teaching that a class in the antitypical Tabernacle Camp has been consecrating since 1954?

RGJ quotes our comments on this statement, and styles it “shallow reasoning.” He makes this statement about us because we accept literally what Brother Johnson taught on p. 672 of E-10; whereas, RGJ is now trying to tell us what he meant. Well, we still accept what he said! This is on par with his kinsmen of the past when they ‘in­terpreted’ the Scriptures –told them what to believe the Scriptures meant. Although RGJ’s attempt here is even more ridiculous, because he is now telling us Brother Johnson said something, but meant something else!

He then mentions a “large work” to be done by the Great Company after 1954. Why doesn’t he tell us what that “large work” has been since 1954? He has repeatedly re­ferred to his “attestatorial service” since 1954, in which none of the Levite groups have joined; in fact, we believe it is a statement without prejudice –and nothing but the truth –that he has fewer Great Company members with him now than he had in 1954. On p. 56, col. 2, par. 1, he says this “attestatorial service” is “just as the Little Flock attestatorial service began promptly 40 years previously, in 1914.” Why doesn’t he tell us what that Little Flock attestatorial service accomplished in 1914-1916; then compare it with his own in 1954-1956, if he accepts the parallel? As we have previously pointed out, he could show less in 1956 than he did in 1954. Yet, he is crass enough to offer such Azazelian trickery to his sleepy readers. All of us know of an outstanding event that occurred in 1914 –to begin the Little Flock Attestatorial Service; and we know, too, of an outstanding event that ended it in November 1916. Let RGJ name any events at all to parallel these things in 1954-1956.

Also, he repeatedly refers to 1954 as the end of the Epiphany in a “restricted sense.” Nowhere in the Epiphany writings does he find such a statement. It is purely an invention by RGJ. The Epiphany and the Time of Trouble are identical –is a teach­ing all Epiphany-enlightened brethren learned under the Epiphany Messenger, and still retain if they “continue in” the Epiphany Truth. In this same connection, at no place in his writings did Brother Johnson ever hint at justification in the Camp during this Age, nor did he ever present the expression “Consecrated Campers” for this Age. That, too, is pure invention by RGJ (or should we say by J. W. Krewson?).

In the January 1950 Present Truth Brother Johnson said he expected to complete the writing of the rest of the 21 volumes of the Epiphany Studies – the last two would be on Revelation – practically every part of which was then clear to him. What has be­come of those notes? Why have they been withheld? Our opinion is that those notes, if published, would completely annihilate RGJ’s teachings on no more saints on earth, etc. In fact, we know – of our own knowledge – that some of his very close partners in per­version, right in the Bible House, have grossly falsified respecting some of those truths that Brother Johnson produced.

His No. 3 Question: – Did Bro. Johnson in his later years revise his teachings, so that he no longer taught (1) that the Epiphany, or Apocalypse, period would end in its narrow or restricted sense in the Fall of 1954, (2) that the Basileia would begin in its first lapping beginning in the Fall of 1954, and (3) that after the Fall of 1954 no more Youthful Worthies would be won?

RGJ’s comments on this question are in keeping with what he has said in the prev­ious questions – and with the same kind of “logic”(?). He says on p. 57, col. 2, par. 3, that this “teacher of sophistry” (meaning JJH, we assume), is comparable to J. F. Rutherford in 1920 in his denial of a “modern (Youthful) Worthy class.” We rest in the assurance of the fact that most of our readers are well aware that we have spent much time and effort to reassert the faithful doctrine of Youthful Worthiship as taught by both Messengers – a Class of faithful consecrators “from 1881 until Restitution sets in, for whom there are no crowns available, and hence no Spirit-begetting... who will be the Millennial Associates of the Ancient Worthies in reward and service” (E-4:342) ­or so long as Tentative Justification is available for such consecrators. Those of us informed in the matter know that Brother Russell clearly taught – and Brother Johnson confirmed with many Scriptures – that there would be such a class in the end of the Age. But we also know that neither Brother Russell nor Brother Johnson ever gave the slightest hint of a Consecrated Campers class in the end of the Age. It took a J. F. Rutherford and RGJ to produce such classes!

As stated previously, this latter class is pure invention by RGJ – a new doctrine, which Brother Johnson taught is “gazing” by such as RGJ and JFR. Thus, his comparison of JFR to us is simply some more of his Azazelian tactics, much the same as he used against the Epiphany Messenger: “Not a few in the ecclesia sympathized with them (RGJ, et al—JJH); and had not J. been present and vigorously opposed their resolution, so Azazelianly constructed as, if possible, to have deceived the very Elect, it would doubt­less have passed.” (E-10:646) It would seem that he is more adept now than he was then. He now doesn’t have the restraining hand of “J. present” with him to thwart his sins of teaching and practice. There is in fact no basis for his comparison of JFR with us, but there is every evidence to prove the comparison fits him! It is simply some more of his loose irresponsible “profusion of words to no purpose.” As Brother Johnson has faithfully recorded: “both the three bad Levite groups and the good levites, the crown-­losers in the Epiphany movement, darken the Truth by their teachings without proper know­ledge.” (E-10:594)

His Question No. 4: – Is it wrong to hold forth the hope of attaining Youthful Worthiship to those who have consecrated since the Fall of 1954 and those consecrating now?

In his answer to this question, RGJ says we are not to hold forth false hopes to anyone – and with this we are in full agreement. He then proceeds to tell us, “after the door of entrance into the High Calling closed in the Fall of 1914, so since the Fall of 1954 the Youthful Worthy call ended.” In proof of this he offers his “parallel”; and from this it is clear he does not understand the meaning of the word ‘parallel.’ Those informed in the matter know that 1914 brought “the night wherein no man can work.” As the war enveloped the various countries, it put an end to the reaping work. Now let RGJ point to any infinitesimal action of any kind in 1954 that put an end to gathering Youth­ful Worthies. Only one badly befuddled by Azazel would attempt to prove a “parallel” there. The facts emphatically contradict his contention. And the same may be said for his “Parallel” of October 1956.

Then he refers to Leviticus 12, “which Scripture the opposers carefully avoid fac­ing squarely in this connection.” Of course, this statement is simply another of his falsehoods, reveals once more his “bad conscience” (See E-10:585), and that he’s still the same “false-accusing Epiphany crown-loser” with whom Brother Johnson had abundant vexation. On various occasions we have declared that Leviticus 12 has no application whatever to the Youthful Worthy call ending – nor did Brother Johnson at any place in his writings attempt such an application. The Scripture refers to the cleansing of the Little Flock and Great Company developing truths. If those truths were properly under­stood by RGJ, he would not be talking the nonsense he now does. This nonsense is clear­ly evident when he attempts to “parallel” Brother Johnson’s activity toward Youthful Worthies with his own activity now toward Campers Consecrated. Brother Johnson had the teaching of That Servant to build upon – but RGJ has nothing of the sort for his newly-­invented non-existent Class of Campers Consecrated from either the Parousia or Epiphany Messengers.

Let us not forget that Brother Johnson energetically and sincerely pursued his ac­tivity toward winning Little Flock members for some four years after 1914. It was not until 1918 that he himself awoke to the fact that that call was completed in the Fall of 1914. Note now RGJ’s statement on p. 58, col. 1, par. 2 of the above question: “Soon after the Fall of 1914 Brother Johnson began teaching... the High Calling closed.” It seems to us he is putting quite a strain on the word “soon,” when he describes four years in that manner. If he were a reliable teacher – with a “good conscience” instead of a “bad” one – he would give the time as we have. Or, can it be possible he doesn’t even know this fact?

Further, he declares, “If God were to keep the call to Youthful Worthiship open until restitution begins, the last ones called would have no time to make their calling and election sure before the Highway of Holiness is opened.” Here are the exact words Brother Johnson used on the subject: “Those faithful consecrators from 1881 until Resti­tution sets in, for whom there are no crowns available... will be the Millennial associ­ates of the Ancient Worthies in reward and service.” (E-4:342) And we might offer this question here: It is now 16 years since his “lapping” parallel began. Is he telling us that 16 years would be insufficient for Youthful Worthies to make their calling and elec­tion sure?

Also That Wise and Faithful Servant has this to say in the Sept. 1, 1915 Watch Tower, Reprint 5761, col. 2, top: “It is our thought that with the closing of the ‘door’ of this Gospel Age there will be no more begetting of the Holy Spirit to the spirit nature. Any afterward coming to God through consecration, before the inauguration of the restitu­tion work, will be accepted by Him, not to the-spirit plane of being, but to the earthly plane. Such would come in under the same conditions as the Ancient Worthies who were accepted of God.... Our thought is that whoever under such conditions as these will make a full consecration to the Lord, to leave all to follow in His ways, and will live up faithfully, loyally, to that consecration, may be privileged to be counted as a similar class to those who preceded this Gospel Age. We know of no reason why the Lord would re­fuse to receive those who make a consecration after the close of the Gospel Age High Call­ing and before the full opening of the Millennium.”

Here we have both Parousia and Epiphany Messengers teaching us that such consecra­tors would come in under the same conditions as the Ancient Worthies – all who consecrate and are faithful thereto – UNTIL THE FULL OPENING OF THE MILLENNIUM or UNTIL RESTITU­TION SETS IN, with RGJ ridiculing such a teaching as an impossibility! He also criti­cizes and ridicules us for “continuing in” that Truth, and presenting it against his errors. As we have said in previous papers, the true parallel to 1914 will arrive when the Time of Trouble becomes severe enough to produce “the night wherein no man can work.” And, when that time does come, it will make crystal clear to all who are “of the Truth” that Rev. 22:10,11 is having its fulfillment – when it will be “useless to exhort the tentatively justified to consecrate,” as Brother Johnson has stated in E-10:114.

His Question No. 5: – Is it true that in the Epiphany Tabernacle setting, there can be no justification outside the linen certain?

On p. 59, col. 1, par. 1, there is this statement: “Eventually the Epiphany Camp will consist only of ‘those who will persist in believing in Jesus as Savior and King.’” Then in par. 2, col. 1 he rails “the tactics of a shyster lawyer” at us for our handling of Brother Johnson’s writings. It will be noted earlier in this refutation that we quoted from E-10:209 on this very subject; but we also included all that Brother Johnson said there – that such members of the Epiphany Camp will be “not consecrated Jews and Gentiles.” So, here again, RGJ reveals he is still the same “false-accusing Epiphany crown-loser” that hurled “unfair and unkind criticisms” at Brother Johnson ­even as he continues his “unfair and unkind criticisms” of both Brother Johnson and Brother Russell in their teaching of Youthful Worthies – “until Restitution begins” ­and now includes JJH in such criticisms.

His Question No. 6: – In teaching that the Basileia period began in 1954 and that those who have consecrated since then will have an eventual reward as a part of the restitution class, are you not thereby teaching that the restitution salvation has be­gun and that the Millennial-Age Tabernacle is in operation?

In answering this question, RGJ offers copious quotations from Brother Johnson, especially from E-Vol. 12, with which we are in full agreement. But we are definitely in disagreement with RGJ’s conclusions about that book, and with his ‘fractured’ Epi­phany Tabernacle. He is now telling us there are two Epiphany Tabernacles – one up to 1954, and another from that date onward to the end of the Epiphany – although he doesn’t mention the “finished picture” that the Epiphany Messenger gave us. Let him give us any Scriptural precedent for such bedlam. And let him give us anything from the Epi­phany writings to support it. Or, is this just another of his own inventions?

As all of us know, the Gospel Age Tabernacle continued to the Fall of 1914; but, when 1881 arrived, and some consecrators began to appear in the Court who were not new creatures, the Gospel Age Tabernacle itself did not change – justification was still found only in the Court. The condition pictured by the Court did not change; the con­dition pictured by the Camp did not change. But RGJ is telling us we may, since 1954, find justification in the Court and also in the Camp! We are still in the Gospel Age – ­the last special period, as taught by the Epiphany Messenger; and the linen curtain, during the faith dispensation, has always been a distinct wall of partition between the faithful justified and those not so. The Court is a type of Justification, even as RGJ himself taught during the lifetime of the two Messengers. The only difference in the Court “in the finished picture,” as taught by the Epiphany Messenger, is that all the tentatively justified who had not sealed their justification by consecration, would have their Tentative Justification lapse and be remanded to the Camp. Now, if that is the case, they were still in character the same as they were when they were in the Court: they were remanded because of their failure to comply in consecration with all require­ments and opportunities of the Tentatively Justified. Does RGJ teach that all those who were remanded to the Camp, having their Tentative Justification to lapse as they leave the Court, will have it renewed as they enter the Camp? In character such people will be exactly the same in the Camp as they were in the Court.

He also teaches that it is possible for Campers to consecrate now, which would in­clude all believers, of course – and would imply a Millennial condition. But from the other side of his mouth he tells us that the Millennial Salvation is not yet available not opened up! This is a Gospel-Age Restitution Salvation! And his Campers are now inscribing their names in the Book of Life, even though their Book of Life is not opened up until the New Covenant is inaugurated!

That curtain in the type made clear distinction between the Priests and Levites, and those in the Camp. And in that Camp there were many of the quasi-elect; but in no place does Brother Russell or Brother Johnson tell us those people had a faith-­justification such as the Ancient Worthies. But RGJ is now telling us that his Camp­ers Consecrated and Youthful Worthies (whose standing is exactly the same as the An­cient Worthies) have the same faith justification. As he said once from a Convention platform, we couldn’t tell one from the other of these consecrated Camp people and the Youthful Worthies, since their consecrations were the same – “unto death” – in both cases. Clearly enough, this is purely invention on his part – the same as was the Jonadabs, ‘great multitude,’ etc., a pure invention on JFR’s part – a new doctrine never before in this Age, or in previous Ages, taught by any one else. And, since Brother Johnson properly taught that such invention by such as RGJ and JFR is “gazing,” we still accept his teaching as correct, and must therefore label RGJ as a full-fledged “gazer,” who is offering “strange fire” (false doctrine) before the Lord. And let us keep in mind that it was JFR who first invented such a Class of consecrated people in the Camp – the only difference being in the name he gave them; so RGJ is indeed treading in real good footsteps when he accepts such an idea from him! Thus, in this he is imitating JFR by perverting the true Tabernacle picture, and by tampering with Tenta­tive Justification.

Once more he tells us “the half tribe of Manasseh west of Jordan types such a Class. Brother Johnson has properly taught that type and antitype must correspond in every detail. This is an elementary consideration – a “must” in proper interpretation of any type. RGJ had not learned this during Brother Russell’s lifetime (see his letter in the Nov. 15, 1910 Watch Tower); and it is evident he did not learn it during Brother Johnson’s lifetime, otherwise he would not now be offering his present confu­sion. In the type, the half tribe of Manasseh west of Jordan received not one iota of advantage in land or position above the other nine tribes west of Jordan. Therefore, any advantage RGJ now promises his Campers Consecrated on the basis of that type is simply effervescent nonsense. Of course, Brother Johnson has told us that when these people fall into the clutches of Azazel, they talk all sorts of nonsense; and here is another sample of it. “When for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God.” (Heb. 5:12) And a “first principle” here is that type and antitype must correspond in every detail; and, if it does not, we may know, without further research, that there is something badly wrong with it.

His Question No. 7: – In the March-April PT, pages 29 and 30, you show that ac­cording to the Scriptures, many of which you cite, Bro. Russell was correct in teaching in Tabernacle Shadows (pp. 105-112) that while the antitypical water of separation “will specially apply to the world of mankind during the Millennial Age,” it applies also to God’s people during the Gospel Age, for the sufferings of the red heifer class “have to do with the cleansing or purification of the people of God, including those who shall yet become His people during the Millennial Age.” But you mention also another state­ment he made in Z 1897, col. 2, par. (7), i.e., in the Nov. 15, 1895 Zion’s Watch Tower: “Had the red heifer and its ashes been connected with the Gospel Age cleansings, the Apostle surely would have shown the fact here (i.e., in Heb, 9:13).” Since this state­ment does not agree with what he Wrote in Tabernacle Shadows, and was written some time afterward, should we not accept it and reject his teaching in Tabernacle Shadows on this matter, as one of the sifters now advocates?

In his answer to this RGJ uses his habitual “Satan” charges against us; and this clearly is nothing more than a smoke-screen to conceal his own condition: He is self-­admittedly a part of the “goat for Azazel” – Satan – (Lev. 16:8, margin). Thus, his yelling “Satan” here is simply a take-off of the old Jesuitical trick that has been in use by them for hundreds of years – to divert attention from their own miserable actions. Let us note well that Brother Russell in 1895 offered a clear Scriptural correction for his statement in Tabernacle Shadows.

In a previous answer to a Question in this same Present Truth RGJ again quotes Brother Russell as teaching “a tentative justification” during the Millennium. Here he is offering a direct contradiction to what Brother Johnson taught in E-11:170: “no faith justification in the Millennial Age”; and in E-15:216: “no tentative or vital­ized justification in the Millennium.” And it is also a direct contradiction to what Brother Russell himself said on page 312 of the Question book: “At the close of this Age there will no longer be a tentative justification.” And to these statements also: “Faith-justification ceases with the Gospel Age” (E-6:717) And we believe that his own followers who receive this article will be persuaded by the Truths quoted here from both Messengers.

When Brother Johnson was stating in E-4 that Tentative Justification would prevail “until Restitution begins,” he was simply using this in a secondary sense: His main purpose in making that statement was to prove that Youthful Worthiship would be avail­able so long as Tentative Justification was available; but the Youthful Worthy Class and Tentative Justification will pass away simultaneously when this Age ends.And all who still hold to Parousia and Epiphany Truth can readily see this when they read Epi­phany Volume 4, and note Brother Johnson’s refutations of JFR’s errors on Tentative Justification and Youthful Worthies.

Regarding the ashes of the Red Heifer, we stated in our previous paper on the sub­ject that those memories certainly are helpful to all of us now – all those memories recorded in the Bible – and have been helpful all during this Age to God’s people. But we continue to agree with Brother Russell’s statement in Nov. 1895 Tower that it is not a specific type for this Age. As stated above, Let us note well that Brother Russell in 1895 offered a clear Scriptural correction for his statement in Tabernacle Shadows. Of course, he didn’t revise Tabernacle Shadows on this point, just as he didn’t revise it on the teaching that the Gospel Age only was the Day of Atonement. When the Ancient Worthies are with us, then all the “ashes” of those faithful people will inure to the cleansing of the world – about some of whom we now know absolutely nothing. (See Heb. 11:32) At the top of p. 61, col. 1, RGJ says “the red heifer represents both the An­cient Worthies and the Youthful Worthies.” If he now wants to be at all consistent, then he must be teaching that the Youthful Worthies are also a type applicable to the Gospel Age for the cleansing of God’s people. Will he make himself clear on this point?

A number of times in this Present Truth RGJ refers to us as the “errorist who has been teaching what Brother Johnson termed ‘sophistry’ on the saints’ reign.” Our teach­ing on this subject is identical to our teaching on “the end” of 1 Cor. 15:24; but it will be noted RGJ is careful to omit any reference to this text. He probably knows our analysis of this text, and our refutations of his contentions, have been well received by our readers – and some from his own group have so expressed themselves. We are told that others don’t go along with RGJ’s contentions after reading our analysis.

“If one observes one faithful in his ministry of the Lord, the Truth, the brethren and all others with whom he has to do, let him recognize that such an one has had great favor of the Parousia and Epiphany Messengers, and not that of power-grasping and lord­ing Levite leaders.” (E-11:654, top) “Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do. Now the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned. From which some having swerved have turned aside unto vain jangling. Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm.” (I Tim. 1:4,7)

Sincerely your brother, John J. Hoefle, Pilgrim

----------------------------------------------------------

LETTERS OF GENERAL INTEREST

Dear Brother Hoefle: Christian greetings!

Your letter informing us that you sent a part of the books has been received, but the books have not arrived yet. We would like to join with you in the Special Effort of October to November 15. Kindly send us an assorted number of tracts for the occa­sion. The friends specially mentioned Permission of Evil and Where are the Dead.

It is good to know that you and all there are in reasonably good health. We here are in good spirits. All join in sending Christian love to you, Sister Hoefle and the friends.

SISTER AUGUSTA HENZ

It was our privilege to conduct the funeral of this beloved Sister on August 17. In a few months (Nov. 29) she would have reacted her 96th year. If we consider the history of the United States as beginning with the War of the Revolution in 1775, then she lived over almost one-half of the entire history of this country; saw it progress from the ox cart to the jet airplane, and to men on the moon. She embraced the Truth very early in this century, and was personally known to us for more than fifty years. It is our belief that she was a “good soldier,” a faithful co-laborer and a trustworthy sister. Thus, we say of her “she hath done what she could.” It is our hope – and belief – that we may repeat for her the words of St. Paul: “I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith.”

SISTER EMILY PICKERING

Another beloved Sister finished her course this Spring; would have been 101 years old in September. We believe she also “fought a good fight, kept the faith” ­yet without sectarianism, and without succumbing to the third “slaughter-weapon man” of Combinationism. “When the Son of Man cometh, shall He find the faith in the earth?” Such faith is indeed precious, and sadly missed, when one of its recipients is taken from our midst.